naa a22 4500 510747868 CHVBK 20180411083053.0 cr unu---uuuuu 180411e20130601xx s 000 0 eng 10.1007/s11547-012-0913-8 doi (NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s11547-012-0913-8 The PROCAINA (PROstate CAncer INdication Attitudes) Project (Part I): a survey among Italian radiation oncologists on postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer [Elektronische Daten] [F. Alongi, B. De Bari, P. Franco, P. Ciammella, T. Chekrine, L. Livi, B. Jereczek-Fossa, A. Filippi] Il progetto PROCAINA (PROstate CAncer INdication Attitudes) (Parte I): una survey tra gli oncologi radioterapisti italiani sulla radioterapia postoperatoria per il tumore prostatico Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) has an established role in the postoperative treatment of prostate cancer patients with extracapsular extension, positive surgical margins or a detectable post-operative prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Despite the large number of patients treated with postoperative RT, some issues about optimal technique, doses, volumes, timing and association with androgen deprivation are still subject of debate. The aim of this survey was to determine the patterns of choice of Italian radiation oncologists in two different clinical cases of postoperative prostate cancer patients. Study design: During the 2010 National Congress of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology (AIRO), four clinical cases were presented to the attending radiation oncologists. Two of them were cases of postoperative prostate cancer, differing in T stage of the primary tumour according to the TNM classification, preoperative staging procedures, preoperative PSA (iPSA), Gleason score of biopsies and definitive pathological specimen after surgery and postoperative PSA. For each clinical case, the radiation oncologists were asked to: (a) give indication to new pre-treatment procedures for staging; b) give indication to postoperative treatment; (c) to define specifically, where indicated, the total dose, type of fractionation, treatment volumes, type of technique, type of image-guided setup control; (d) indicate whether adjuvant hormonal therapy should be prescribed; (e) define criteria that mostly influenced the prescription. A descriptive statistical analysis was then performed. Results: A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed amongst radiation oncologists attending the congress; 128 were completed and considered for this analysis (41%). Some important differences were shown in prescribing and performing postoperative radiotherapy, and some significant differences with international guidelines and data available from the literature were also reviewed and discussed. Conclusions: Despite the results of clinical trials, significant differences still exist among Italian radiation oncologists in deciding postoperative treatment in prostate cancer patients. These patients probably deserve a more uniform approach based on updated, detailed and evidencebased recommendations. Springer-Verlag Italia, 2013 PROCAINA nationallicence Survey nationallicence Postoperative radiotherapy nationallicence Prostate cancer nationallicence PROCAINA nationallicence Survey nationallicence Radioterapia postoperatoria nationallicence Tumore prostatico nationallicence Alongi F. Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Humanitas Cancer Center, Rozzano (MI), Italy aut De Bari B. Radiotherapy Department, Istituto del Radio "O. Alberti”, Spedali Civili, Piazzale Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy aut Franco P. Tomotherapy Unit, Radiation Oncology Department, Ospedale Regionale ‘U. Parini', AUSL Valle d'Aosta, Aosta, Italy aut Ciammella P. Radiotherapy Department, IRCCS-Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy aut Chekrine T. Service d'Oncologie Radiothérapie, CHU Ibn Rochd, Casablanca, Morocco aut Livi L. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy aut Jereczek-Fossa B. Division of Radiotherapy, European Institute of Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy aut Filippi A. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Radiation Oncology Unit, University of Torino, Torino, Italy aut La radiologia medica Springer Milan 118/4(2013-06-01), 660-678 0033-8362 118:4<660 2013 118 11547 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-012-0913-8 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-012-0913-8 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Alongi F. Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Humanitas Cancer Center, Rozzano (MI), Italy aut NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- De Bari B. Radiotherapy Department, Istituto del Radio "O. Alberti”, Spedali Civili, Piazzale Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy aut NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Franco P. Tomotherapy Unit, Radiation Oncology Department, Ospedale Regionale ‘U. Parini', AUSL Valle d'Aosta, Aosta, Italy aut NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Ciammella P. Radiotherapy Department, IRCCS-Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy aut NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Chekrine T. Service d'Oncologie Radiothérapie, CHU Ibn Rochd, Casablanca, Morocco aut NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Livi L. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy aut NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Jereczek-Fossa B. Division of Radiotherapy, European Institute of Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy aut NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Filippi A. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Radiation Oncology Unit, University of Torino, Torino, Italy aut NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- La radiologia medica Springer Milan 118/4(2013-06-01), 660-678 0033-8362 118:4<660 2013 118 11547 Metadata rights reserved Springer special CC-BY-NC licence nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-springer